Friday, March 20, 2009

AbortionInfo - a fascinating read

I stumbled across this LiveJournal community while checking out searches that brought people to my blog. Where else did it bring folks? I came in on their "recommended clinics" page. But I was drawn to Multiple abortions. Here's a sampling:

so I've got records for 3 of my abortions. one place agreed to fax them to my doctor, too- this accounts for five procedures. [whew]

one place I went to twice has closed down since I went there. I have no idea how to get those records!

I'm hoping to try to get all of them; I want ammo for my appointment, I'm about fed up trying to get the tubes tied.

This has been a very familiar theme in talking to prochoice women who have had multiple abortions. They are -- I think justifiably -- angry that they can't simply get their tubes tied, that there are so many obstacles.

Now don't get me wrong -- I think that vasectomies and tubal ligations are mutilating healthy bodies. I guess you could say I'm "personally opposed" to vasectomies and tubal ligations. But they're a wrong you choose to do to yourself. Unlike abortion, vasectomy and tubal ligation really are just a matter of what you do to your own body. Why is it so much harder for a woman who knows she doesn't want children to get a tubal ligation? Yeah, it's (usually) irreversible mutilation of a healthy body. But abortion is utterly irreversible destruction of a healthy body. Why should it be easier to take action to kill somebody else in order to prevent yourself from parenting than it is to do something to your own body to prevent yourself from parenting?

Here's a puzzler -- why aren't the "prochoice" lobbying groups screaming bloody murder about barriers to tubal ligation? They say they're all about women making choices about their own bodies. They vehemently oppose informed consent and waiting periods for abortions. But they don't have equal outrage about virtually insurmountable barriers to tubal ligations. Shouldn't they be beating this drum? Because women might later regret their tubal ligations? That can't carry much weight -- women often later regret their abortions to the point where there's a culture of post-abortion support and counseling. I don't see any similar thing for tubal-ligation regret.

Something very fishy there.

I've had more than 10 abortions. I'm 36.

I had my first when I was 16, and my most recent just two weeks ago. I've had two 2nd trimester abortions, one at 19 weeks, and the most recent one was at 18.3 weeks. all the rest were fairly early first trimester. (i can't remember all the specifics and don't want to make this post too too long.)


I've been pregnant twice while using the pill, once on the patch. I wasn't forgetting anything or doing anything wrong, apparently hormonal methods don't work very well for me. with one of these I was taking antibiotics and wasn't told it'd interfere with my birth control. thanks doc!

I've gotten pregnant once on the shot- I forgot my appt date and went in a week late for my third

I've gotten pregnant using condoms (every single time I've been pregnant!) and once with an IUD!


I am apparently a baby machine...except I have never wanted children. I have tried several times to get a tubal, and been refused because I'm childfree and single...and "might change my mind". also, the's more than I usually have available. (ive been without insurance for fifteen years.)


I don't regret any of my abortions. I have never, and still don't, want children.
I do get mad that I was unable to prevent pregnancy even by trying many different methods, and I get angry at the patronizing tone I've gotten from gyn.s when I've asked for more reliable birth control (sterilization)

1. So much for the idea that throwing contraceptives at people will prevent abortions. Would this woman have been as sexually adventuresome if she'd internalized that any act of intercourse could result in a pregnancy? Especially if it could result in a pregnancy she couldn't just pop down the street and get scraped out?

2. So much for the idea that nobody aborts cavalierly.

3. Here again we visit the theme, "Where are the 'choice' people screaming bloody murder when women who want tubal ligations can't get them?" This woman chose more than ten times to end somebody else's life -- with no barriers to that choice whatsoever -- largely because the "choice" lobby isn't as averse to barriers to sterilization as they are to "barriers" to abortion.

There was no broken condom or bad vasectomy; I got pregnant because I was an idiot with a strong sex drive. I was having a lot of sex with a dear friend of mine, and we usually used condoms. One night, we were having a really, extraordinarily wild time out on the couch, far from the nightstand with the condoms in it. He stopped just before pushing himself inside me and said, "wait, is this ok?"

I lied.

"Yes," I whispered; "I can't get pregnant right now." In truth, I had no idea where I was in my cycle or even what day of the month it was; what I wanted was for him to fuck me until we both screamed. I didn't want to stop the momentum to get up, go into the bedroom and laboriously put on the loathsome condom. Also, the man in question had only one testicle; how fertile could he be?

The sex was amazing.

I got knocked up.

No comment.

Well, I have to leave for work now.


Lilliput said...

What about Universal Healthcare in the US where anyone can have a tubal ligation for free?

Kathy said...

Yikes! This is ridiculous. Keep your legs together, people!!

I don't personally find it horrible for women or men to sterilize themselves. What is worse is the attitude of these people who want to "take themselves out of the gene pool." Better to do that, than to kill all your offspring. If you're gonna act like an animal and not control your sex drive, why not get "spayed or neutered" like Bob Barker promoted for 30 years on The Price is Right?

That may be a rotten, snotty attitude I have about it, but reading this list of things was just disgusting. It's bad enough that these women have no regard for their own bodies, and just let men use them for sex, but to create and cavalierly destroy babies multiple times....!! Just no words.

Lilliput said...


Newsflash - women in the 21st century can enjoy sex too - and since its enjoyed by both sexes - no "body" is being used.

What have u guys got against
universal healthcare?

Amy said...

What about Universal Healthcare in the US where anyone can have a tubal ligation for free?

Really? Universal healthcare - a liberal's solution to all our problems. No doubt tubal ligations would be free, but if you get cancer at 50 - you're SOL.

There's a reason why many, many Canadians cross the border into the northern US for health care.

I am opposed to "universal healthcare" because the government can't manage its way out of a paper bag. The first two craptacular months of the Obama administration prove that beyond a shadow of a doubt. They currently run care for our Veterans - do YOU want to go to a rat-infested hospital? Or do you want your doctor's office run like the DMV?

Universal healthcare is "free" for two reasons: 1) they tax the hell out of income and 2) they ration care.

The solution for these women is either to save up and pay for sterilization or don't have sex.

No one - man or woman - has a "right" to enjoy sex or have sex. If you can handle the consequences - don't do it.

That's called maturity. Not this butchering of children because you don't want any.

Kathy said...


Ok, I had to laugh at that one -- When did I say that women can't enjoy sex? thus implying that only men can/should enjoy sex? I never would say that! However, I don't think that men and women should mate like dogs in heat just because they get horny -- which is the attitude expressed by many of these women who got multiple abortions.

Everyone -- men and women -- need to take responsibility for their actions. It takes two in order to get pregnant; but only one can have an abortion. Since that one is always the woman, and will have to undergo the procedure and live with the aftermath (especially if she is like so many women who come to regret their abortions), or will be the primary or perhaps only person involved in raising the child should she choose not to have an abortion, she has more to lose from getting pregnant than the man has for getting her pregnant. For many men, all they "lose" if they get a girl knocked up is a load of sperm during an orgasm. Big whoop.

Oh, yeah, the woman can likewise "use" the man for sex; but biology made the sexes different and unequal when it comes to the propagation of the species; I am just recognizing that.

Lilliput said...

"It's bad enough that these women have no regard for their own bodies, and just let men use them for sex,"

Hi Kathy - I got it from your own words.

The reason why I don't understand why you guys are against universal healthcare is because you expect that any woman should keep her baby or give it up for adoption - when probably the biggest concern for her not being able to care for the child is money or lack of it and therefore no medical insurance.

The one kinda goes with the other. To be honest I assume their are insurance companies who are not providing those expensive new cancer cures either and that's due to greed. How you guys can live with more then 50 million people without access to medical care is heartless no?

Kathy said...


Being used for sex does not mean that the woman cannot or does not enjoy sex. Those are two different areas of discussion. I rather suspect that even prostitutes occasionally enjoy their work, although they are definitely just letting men use their bodies for sex. I don't know which is worse -- getting paid for sex, or just giving it out for free, getting nothing in return -- especially things like love, companionship, security, long-term relationship, etc. The women under discussion made it sound like the most they got from sex was a roll in the hay plus getting pregnant and having an abortion. Hmm, sounds like fun! Yeah, that's a fair trade-off -- a few minutes of passion in return for pregnancy and an abortion. No thanks, I'll pass.

If universal health care was the answer to the abortion problem, nations that had UHC would have no abortion.

No medical insurance does not equal no medical care. Anyone in this country can walk into any hospital in this country that accepts government aid in the form of Medicaid and be treated. That's one of the problems hospitals face -- people getting treatment and then disappearing without paying. Many organizations exist to help low-income people and the uninsured to afford their health-care. It's called charity, and I'm sure it's a heck of a lot more efficient than bloated government bureaucracy. Our country's fast march into socialism that started with the inauguration of our latest President is making me sick, so don't think you'll be able to talk me into wanting the inefficient government that is throwing trillions of dollars the wrong way in an effort to "fix the economy" is going to do any better of a job on health-care. The Obama administration can't even give the British Prime Minister DVDs that worked in the UK! Obama has a hard time even finding people to work for him that don't have tax problems -- the head of our Treasury Department is a tax cheat!! Ok, I'm going to stop before my blood pressure really starts to rise. Here's a link that suggests that the lack of a medical helicopter may have played a role in the recent death of Natasha Richardson. I take medical air-transport for granted, when rapid treatment is needed. The wonderful UHC system in Canada does not have this; America does. No system is perfect, but I prefer the faults of mine to the faults of yours.

Lilliput said...


Would you say that a physiotherapist or a doctor is being used when they use their hands/bodies to do their work? Yes - its the way of the world - you use your body to work to make money.

If both boy and girl consent and enjoy sex - why is anyone using anyone? Rape is not consensual and therefore one body is using the other.

Birth control is a seperate issue - as the women bares the greatest cost of an unwanted pregnancy then its up to her to make sure that she is on the pill/coil etc and that she chooses men who will only have sex with a condom. If they don't do this, then they are being stupid and have to bear the consequences.

In terms of Universal Healthcare - I agree with you taht there is a lot of beaurocratic inefficiency and stupidity when it comes to our healtcare system in the UK - there is no doubt about it - but what we do have is an inate belief that as a basic human right you should have access to medical care without having to go bankrupt - please remember that Obama was probably elected on the fact that he would make changes to healthcare as there are millions of poeple in the US with no access- have you watched Michael Moore's Sicko - yes I know its very one sided - but he isn't making stuff up - he is just telling one side.

What about the greedy and powerful medical insurance companies - I don't see you commenting about that - does that not exist?

In the US if Natasha had to be air lifted and she had no insurance - would it be for free or would she have to sell her house off to pay for it when she recovered or would the holicopter even take off if she didn't have insurance?

Kathy said...


I don't think that medical care is a right, but a luxury and privilege. And as I said before, I'd rather have the problems of the free-market system than the problems of socialism. And I won't watch anything by Michael Moore, because I simply can't believe anything he says.

Insurance companies are in the business to make a profit, just like restaurants and car dealerships. I don't necessarily like everything they do, but if they don't make any money, they cease to go out of business. If people don't like the product they get for their money, they should have the option of going elsewhere. I agree that our laws need to change about insurance -- but the change that I would like is for them to become more competitive, not less, which is what happens under socialized medicine. No thanks!

And the last time I heard a story about emergency workers responding to a car wreck or whatever, they didn't check the person's wallet for an insurance card before they began treatment. Yes, the person will have to pay for the treatment if he has no insurance, but that is the way of the world. Yes, that's a downside, but as I said before, I prefer the downsides of the free market to the worse problems of socialism.

Now, before I explain more about using someone's body for sex, let me ask you what your opinion is of the act of, industry of, and women involved in prostitution, pornography, beauty contests, wet T-shirt contests, etc. Are they good for women? for men? Do you approve of some, all, or none? Why or why not? Do these not promote the idea of women as mere sex objects?